Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 434 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - process amounting to manufacture or not? - activity of redrawing of duty paid SS wire rods and copper/brass tubes/pipes - Revenue alleged that the process of drawing or redrawing amounts to manufacture in terms of Section note 10 to Section XV and Section note 2 to Chapter 74 - benefit of SSI Exemption - extended period of limitation. Whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture insofar as the final product manufactured by them is wire in coil or otherwise? - Held that:- It is seen that to qualify as manufacturer in terms of section note, the final product in the shape of wire has to come into existence. In respect of goods of Chapter 74 and in terms of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 74, the process of drawing or redrawing itself amount to manufacture - It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant had five redrawing machine, one weighing machine of small capacity, grinding machines, one lathe machine, small cutting machine and three drums for pickling - since there is no coiling machine, the question of making coils does not arise. SSI exemption - rejection on account of failure to file declaration - Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption in absence of a formal declaration under N/N. 8/2003? - Held that:- n case of Notification No.8/2003, the filing of declaration is not a mandatory pre-requisite and is more of a procedural nature. Thus it is held that the benefit of small scale notification cannot be denied merely for the failure of the appellant to file the said declaration - benefit of SSI Exemption allowed. Validity of the LRs recovered from various transporters as evidence against the appellant - If the quantum allegedly received by the appellant on the strength of the LRs recovered from the transporters and other third parties is correct or otherwise? - Held that:- It is seen that the addresses appearing in LR could not be verified as some of the addresses were non-existent or bogus - decided against appellant. If the value of goods declared by the appellant is correct or otherwise? - Held that:- As per the statement of Shri Sabir Kadir Khan, manager of the said Services, the said Shri Sabir Kadir Khan also deposed that the said goods were cleared by the appellant without accounting for or making any supporting delivery challan - decided against appellant. Appeal disposed off.
|